Looney wants RFID implants required.

[Beowulf]

Vaccinations are required to help prevent others from getting infected. It help prevent epidemics. As such, there is a compelling PUBLIC need for them to occur. An evidence that RFID chips can affect other members of the public positively?

It makes the emergency medical care system far more efficient; doctors will be less apprehensive about employing care that might be risky without knowing the patients medical history. So yes, it does help people besides the individual.

And this can't of course be done with a necklace with a barcode, or something similar, of course. And since you have this massive database, which many people need to access all across the country, how are you going to make sure no one makes off with personal data?

[The Kernel]

And this can't of course be done with a necklace with a barcode, or something similar, of course.

I'd love to see you try and mandate people carrying necklaces and braclets. THAT would be impossible, since people are simply not going to wear jewlery that the government tells them to. In this case, it is much simpler, you will never forget the chip since it will be in your arm and you will never know it is there.

The system only works properly if everyone has one, it's the sheer ubiqutousness of it that makes it so powerful.

And since you have this massive database, which many people need to access all across the country, how are you going to make sure no one makes off with personal data?

Unlike most net-based systems, the medical database (which has been in the design phase for years, even without the RFID idea) is a proprietary system. That means that it's not going to be something any hacker can just take a crack at; the international credit card system uses technology like this and it has never been compromised.

If you mean an internal leak, it's always a possibility, but no more a risk than someone walking out of your doctor's office with your file. Impose huge criminal penalties for abusing the system and leave it at that.

[Chmee]

Are you seriously trying to make the case that an implantable device that contains personally identifiable information that can be read externally by third parties is identical to a set of antibodies floating around in your blood, which only a further sampling of your blood and analysis in a laboratory would yield information of any kind?

Yes.

And I find your concerns quite amusing, how exactly is the barcode supposed to do a third party any good? They would have to hack a proprietary medical database to get any use out of it, and even if they did, they wouldn't need the barcode in the firstplace to get the information.

You think the vendors of this gear can accurately predict all the ways hackers would exploit the information? That's hardly my experience in infosecurity.

These codes will be meant to be read by a device and either cross-reference a local database (minimum utility but better security) or remote-access a centralized database after some authentication process (far more utility, more security vulnerabilities). If the database includes personally identifiable information and the barcode is the first key in accessing the data, then yes, it sounds like there will be a profit motive for people to hack it. If Microsoft writes the authentication/access software for remote data delivery, god help us.

You can't expect that to pass a laugh test. They're not only not identical they're barely even analagous. They both might involve a needle, that's the similarity .... is knitting also identical to vaccinations?

Legally and morally, they are the same. Both involve the government forcing you to inject foreign objects into your body for the greater good.

"Identical" ... you keep using that word ... I do not think it means what you think it means.

Yes, if you take it to a high enough level of abstraction, an injection is an injection ... so heroin use=vaccination=tagging citizens=lethal injection ...

But if you get down into any level of detail, they are worlds apart ... vaccination is not exploitable as a means of identity theft, credit fraud, spamming, illicit monitoring or police-state supervision of daily activities (even on the X-Files vaccinations weren't that evil), just to name the first exploits that come to mind.

There's no less intrusive means of resisting the measles or a new flu strain than vaccination ... there are plenty of less intrusive ways of delivering secure patient data than tagging human beings like bears.

[The Kernel]

Wait, let me get this straight- is this thing sort of like the fobs you use to open electronic locks at a college dorm? You know, the little plastic widget with the chip in it that you wave in front of the door?

This would be a very interesting application of the technology.

Some of those door locks use RFID, others use a magnetic lock system. It depends on the sophistication of it.

On the other hand, Kernel: Who the fuck made it the government's job to tell us what to do in regards to our own health care? Why the fuck should this be mandatory? I see no reason not to let those who want faster and more efficient emergency health care to be allowed to get one of these chips, while allowing those who don't to do whatever the hell they please. There's no reason that a doctor in an emergency ward can't just check his RFID detector, say "Ooops, this guy doesn't have a chip, I guess I'll just have someone check him for ID, " and get on with fixing his patient the same way doctors have been doing for the last century.

I'm really sick of repeating myself, if you want the answer, read the rest of the thread.

[fgalkin]

Let me ask you, do you find vaccinations intrusive?

Yes. As a matter of fact, I do.

And this sums up the absurdity of your argument right there. Get this through your thick ass skull:

An RFID chip is no different from a vaccination.

That's right, there is no difference between the two at all. So according to your argument, the freedom of privacy (which isn't even mentioned in the Constitution) is more important than the general welfare of society by leaps and bounds. Even the smallest inconvenience is too much, even when it has the potential to save the lives of tens of thousands of people each year.

In other words, you are a grade-A nutcase.

Last time I checked, a vaccination does not broadcast confidential information.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[The Kernel]

You think the vendors of this gear can accurately predict all the ways hackers would exploit the information? That's hardly my experience in infosecurity.

Logic dictates that a barcode is useless in itself unless you have access to the medical database itself. In fact it's useless anyway, if you could hack the database, you wouldn't need the barcode. Do you really need this explained to you?

These codes will be meant to be read by a device and either cross-reference a local database (minimum utility but better security) or remote-access a centralized database after some authentication process (far more utility, more security vulnerabilities). If the database includes personally identifiable information and the barcode is the first key in accessing the data, then yes, it sounds like there will be a profit motive for people to hack it. If Microsoft writes the authentication/access software for remote data delivery, god help us.

Please, your experience in databases sounds like it involves solutions which piggyback on already existing infrastructure. No current proposal for the medical database uses such systems, the current proposal is to decide between a number of totally proprietary systems, just like the ones in use by the DoD, Visa, MC, etc.

"Identical" ... you keep using that word ... I do not think it means what you think it means.

Yes, if you take it to a high enough level of abstraction, an injection is an injection ... so heroin use=vaccination=tagging citizens=lethal injection ...

Don't be an idiot. I'm not using vaccinations as an analogy purely because it involves a needle, but because it also involves the government forcing citizens into having foreign objects inserted into their bodies. The situation is precicely analogous legally and morally to RFID chips. Deal with it.

But if you get down into any level of detail, they are worlds apart ... vaccination is not exploitable as a means of identity theft, credit fraud, spamming, illicit monitoring or police-state supervision of daily activities (even on the X-Files vaccinations weren't that evil), just to name the first exploits that come to mind.

Neither is a medical RFID tag. It is used purely for medical purposes, and is useless without the database itself. This argument applies far more to the database itself than the chip, thus it is a total red herring. The chip needs the database, but the database does not need the chip, and it will come whether or not RFID tagging becomes ubiquotous.

There's no less intrusive means of resisting the measles or a new flu strain than vaccination ... there are plenty of less intrusive ways of delivering secure patient data than tagging human beings like bears.

Appeal to emotion, tagging bears with an active homing device and using a passive RFID barcode are two entirely different things. The medical RFID does not allow for any sort of location monitoring.

[The Kernel]

Last time I checked, a vaccination does not broadcast confidential information.

A barcode is confidential information now?

[Julhelm]

I was pointing out how a chip is different from a vaccination, and furthermore, if they "don't even contain any real information" as you just said, what makes them so necessary that we need mandatory implants in people? Why is it the business of the government whether or not I have this barcode on a bracelet or a chip? Why leave this responsibility to the government at all? Why have the shit implanted? Maybe I don't want electronics implanted in me, why must I? If I have it on a bracelet, it's just a barcode, and if I don't have the bracelet on me when it's needed and die, then it's my own fault for being a neglective moron. If it's on an electronic device, it can be tampered with, as can this wonderful central database of yours.

There's an old saying in the military: "If it ain't broken, don't fix it"

From what I can see, it applies here as well.

If saving those extra lives matters so much to you, volunteer for drug tests, give blood or become a part-time fireman, but don't try to shove your damn tech-messiah down mine or anybody elses throats.

[fgalkin]

Last time I checked, a vaccination does not broadcast confidential information.

A barcode is confidential information now?

Yes, if it allows access to a medical database.

have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[The Kernel]

I was pointing out how a chip is different from a vaccination, and furthermore, if they "don't even contain any real information" as you just said, what makes them so necessary that we need mandatory implants in people? Why is it the business of the government whether or not I have this barcode on a bracelet or a chip? Why leave this responsibility to the government at all? Why have the shit implanted? Maybe I don't want electronics implanted in me, why must I? If I have it on a bracelet, it's just a barcode, and if I don't have the bracelet on me when it's needed and die, then it's my own fault for being a neglective moron. If it's on an electronic device, it can be tampered with, as can this wonderful central database of yours.

Why don't you read the thread before making me repeat myself for the millionth time? The chips are necessary because tens of thousands of people die a year because doctors do not have proper medical histories on their patients before treating them in emergency conditions.

There's an old saying in the military: "If it ain't broken, don't fix it"

If tens of thousands of people are dying per year because of the lack of this system, I'd say something is broken.

If saving those extra lives matters so much to you, volunteer for drug tests, give blood or become a part-time fireman, but don't try to shove your damn tech-messiah down mine or anybody elses throats.

Hmmm, what's that I see? Oh yes, not one logical argument against medical RFID tagging. Gee, what a shock.

[The Kernel]

Last time I checked, a vaccination does not broadcast confidential information.

A barcode is confidential information now?

Yes, if it allows access to a medical database.

It doesn't allow access to the medical database just by having the barcode itself.

Besides, if someone could crack the database in the first place, they wouldn't need the barcodes to look up patient information. How hard is this for you to understand?

[fgalkin]

A barcode is confidential information now?

Yes, if it allows access to a medical database.

It doesn't allow access to the medical database just by having the barcode itself.

Besides, if someone could crack the database in the first place, they wouldn't need the barcodes to look up patient information. How hard is this for you to understand?

Yes, but wouldn't having the barcode be similar to using a password. You don't need to crack a database to get someone's info, only a password. And that password would be broadcast by the chip, for anyone to read.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[DrkHelmet]

I was pointing out how a chip is different from a vaccination, and furthermore, if they "don't even contain any real information" as you just said, what makes them so necessary that we need mandatory implants in people? Why is it the business of the government whether or not I have this barcode on a bracelet or a chip? Why leave this responsibility to the government at all? Why have the shit implanted? Maybe I don't want electronics implanted in me, why must I? If I have it on a bracelet, it's just a barcode, and if I don't have the bracelet on me when it's needed and die, then it's my own fault for being a neglective moron. If it's on an electronic device, it can be tampered with, as can this wonderful central database of yours.

Why don't you read the thread before making me repeat myself for the millionth time? The chips are necessary because tens of thousands of people die a year because doctors do not have proper medical histories on their patients before treating them in emergency conditions.

Sidenote: Is this really more practical than simply putting your prints on the system, and then scanning your fingerprint as you come in the door? Sure, there is the possibility that the fingerprints will be seared off, as there is the possibility of a electromagnetic discharge destroying the data on the chip too.

Wouldn't this be simple?

[Julhelm]

Why don't you read the thread before making me repeat myself for the millionth time? The chips are necessary because tens of thousands of people die a year because doctors do not have proper medical histories on their patients before treating them in emergency conditions.

Too bad it doesn't warrant the risk that government mandated electronic tagging of all citizens comprises.

Hmmm, what's that I see? Oh yes, not one logical argument against medical RFID tagging. Gee, what a shock.

If the government is allowed mandatory implants of these RFID chips, it sets a precedent in which the government can pretty much implant any other electronics in you "for your own good". Now do you see the argument?

[The Kernel]

Yes, but wouldn't having the barcode be similar to using a password. You don't need to crack a database to get someone's info, only a password. And that password would be broadcast by the chip, for anyone to read.

A few problems here:

1) You would need access to the database. Only medical personal would have such access. This is not something a hacker could get into, you need access to the proper hardware terminals.

2) The database is not just for linking with RFID tags. The idea behind the medical database it to create a comprehensive collection of all of the medical information of a person, so that it can be accessed by doctors anywhere, which would greatly speed diagnosis. IOW, if you go to a specialist, he would have all the information on your background that your normal GP would have, there would be no need to fill out long forms on doctor visits.

The practical side of this is that people can be referenced by things other than barcodes (names for instance), so the barcode itself won't help someone who is trying to access your information.

[The Kernel]

Sidenote: Is this really more practical than simply putting your prints on the system, and then scanning your fingerprint as you come in the door? Sure, there is the possibility that the fingerprints will be seared off, as there is the possibility of a electromagnetic discharge destroying the data on the chip too.

Wouldn't this be simple?

Show me a practical technological model for fingerprint scanning with sufficient accuracy, speed and cost. I am not aware of such a technology.

One of the benefits of the RFID is that both the readers and the chips are cheap.

[Stofsk]

Why don't you read the thread before making me repeat myself for the millionth time? The chips are necessary because tens of thousands of people die a year because doctors do not have proper medical histories on their patients before treating them in emergency conditions.

Too bad it doesn't warrant the risk that government mandated electronic tagging of all citizens comprises.

What risk is that? If, according to the Kernel, tens of thousands of people die each year, what risk can be gleaned from a chip containing medical information?

If the government is allowed mandatory implants of these RFID chips, it sets a precedent in which the government can pretty much implant any other electronics in you "for your own good". Now do you see the argument?

Too bad that precedent has already been established through: vaccinations, the quality of air that goes into your lungs, the quality of water that goes down your throat from a tap, the quality of food that is governmentally regulated.

Face it: the government already has a precedent for putting things into your body.

[Julhelm]

Too bad that precedent has already been established through: vaccinations, the quality of air that goes into your lungs, the quality of water that goes down your throat from a tap, the quality of food that is governmentally regulated.

Face it: the government already has a precedent for putting things into your body.

I was specifically referring to electronic devices. Try again.

[The Kernel]

Too bad it doesn't warrant the risk that government mandated electronic tagging of all citizens comprises.

Why is that exactly?

If the government is allowed mandatory implants of these RFID chips, it sets a precedent in which the government can pretty much implant any other electronics in you "for your own good". Now do you see the argument?

Ahh here's why. The same slippery slope fallacy that has been pushed since page 1 and has been discredited a hundred times over. Sorry asswipe, but a logical fallacy doesn't constitute an argument.

[DrkHelmet]

Sidenote: Is this really more practical than simply putting your prints on the system, and then scanning your fingerprint as you come in the door? Sure, there is the possibility that the fingerprints will be seared off, as there is the possibility of a electromagnetic discharge destroying the data on the chip too.

Wouldn't this be simple?

Show me a practical technological model for fingerprint scanning with sufficient accuracy, speed and cost. I am not aware of such a technology.

One of the benefits of the RFID is that both the readers and the chips are cheap.

Okie dokie

[The Kernel]

I was specifically referring to electronic devices. Try again.

I would hesitate to call an RFID chip and electronic device seeing as it has no power source whatsoever.

And that doesn't invalidate Stofsk comments; an RFID chip might as well be antibodies, air toxins, floride, etc. There is no legal or moral difference between them.

[Julhelm]

Ahh here's why. The same slippery slope fallacy that has been pushed since page 1 and has been discredited a hundred times over. Sorry asswipe, but a logical fallacy doesn't constitute an argument.

Oh, I forgot that in your ideal world of logic where humanity isn't human, government abuse of technology to control it's citizens is an impossibility.

Too bad the likes of Gestapo, STASI and NKVD show that there is no way you can discredit this argument as a "logical fallacy".

[The Kernel]

Okie dokie

Idiot, that's is tied to a single fingerprint, or a handful at most.

Besides, it still doesn't meet the criteria. You need a device which is increadibly accurate (which I don't see proof of when dealing with hundreds of millions of fingerprints), fast (which I don't see proof of when dealing with hundreds of millions of fingerprints), cost effective (which I don't see proof of when dealing with hundreds of millions of fingerprints), etc. Show me the proof of this, not a personal biometric security solution for computers.

[Stofsk]

Too bad that precedent has already been established through: vaccinations, the quality of air that goes into your lungs, the quality of water that goes down your throat from a tap, the quality of food that is governmentally regulated.

Face it: the government already has a precedent for putting things into your body.

I was specifically referring to electronic devices. Try again.

No, my counter is valid. You merely warned about a dangerous precedent being set by the government putting things into your body, without bothering to think that this is a precedent already set for decades, if not centuries.

Frankly, a chip that has no electronic component and is nothing more than a barcode to a medical database is about as benign as the vaccinations I received as a child. I can tell you though, it is more benign than the toxic sludge that is pumped out into the air I breath thanks to fossil fuel burning; the chemicals that are put into my tap water that I don't even know about; the preservatives and other shit put into food I eat that is approved by the government.

[The Kernel]

Oh, I forgot that in your ideal world of logic where humanity isn't human, government abuse of technology to control it's citizens is an impossibility.

Too bad the likes of Gestapo, STASI and NKVD show that there is no way you can discredit this argument as a "logical fallacy".

Do you even know what a slippery slope fallacy is and why it is a fallacy? Stupid troll, maybe you ought to educate yourself before spouting bullshit.

Face it, you don't have a logical foundation for your argument, the existance of Nazi Germany and Stalist Russia does not change that one iota. Of course, if you had any knowledge of debate, you'd already know that. Sadly, you don't.